A quick scan suggests this isn't officially corroborated and is just an opinion piece. Is there any evidence Sony hoped to attract film-lovers to trying video games?
Gameplay elements, evolution, and enjoyment not for everyone? [2019+] *spawn*
- Thread starter orangpelupa
- Start date
Wow that article is a ball of well you know what I mean uncharted 4 has some of the best 3rd person cover combat which demands quite a lot of variety in how you tackle the different situations on the higher difficulties.
Editing my post is nonsense delete it or ban me but don't edit my words.
Editing my post is nonsense delete it or ban me but don't edit my words.
Last edited:
They didn't say there's no gameplay.
Don't know what they ment but i think sony tries to attract anyone to their platform, like any company. Cinematic games are just great for marketing.
It's a fact these games take that extra cinematic approach, you love it some don't. It's fine either way. I agree with the article, it's about what ive been (trying) to say (and others).
Sony would be happy to attract more customers. However, you can't please all the people, so any product is targeted at a sector of population. The argument is made that Uncharted was designed to target film-watchers based on their interest in films as a business strategy to target a consumer sector. And it was expressed as a fact. Without evidence, we just have one random person's personal take, and this article is no more significant than any opinions and personal interpretations posted in this thread. Without data supporting that idea, it's just as likely UC was made cinematic because Sony/ND saw the overlap between gamers and film-goers (eh...all gamers watch films...) and decided to make a game gamer's would like. Or there wasn't even any motive beyond Josh Scherr had been wanting to make an Indiana-Jones type game all his life and was afforded the chance.
"The thing that we wanted to focus on from the get-go were characters and story," he explains. "That was something we felt that — particularly back in 2005, 2006 when this first started getting developed — was something that was sort of an afterthought in the majority of video games out there. So we really wanted not only to tell this pulpy, action adventure-style thing, but also really try to develop some relatable, entertaining characters and have the story be what pulled you through the game."
Which is really important because a game designed to attract movie-watchers who don't game would probably be seriously dumbed down on the gameplay, which UC wasn't.
Someone else having the same opinion as you doesn't make it true or more relevant than opinions contrary to yours. It's confusing why you linked to it when it doesn't contribute anything new other than to hint it has insider information that, apparently, it doesn't. I opened it expecting interviews with Sony people explaining the deliberate cinematic strategy to attract movie-goers, only to find no such info (although I haven't read it properly, only skimmed).
Last edited:
Gaming has been showing signs it would reach movie quality and immersion for decades.
No matter how you see it, set pieces and "epic" moments are part of the whole package of the gaming industry.
Gamers and developers watch movies too, there are things they like in movies and want to see that level of quality being expressed in games.
Thats a lot different from games becoming "movies" with weak or barely any gameplay though.
No matter how you see it, set pieces and "epic" moments are part of the whole package of the gaming industry.
Gamers and developers watch movies too, there are things they like in movies and want to see that level of quality being expressed in games.
Thats a lot different from games becoming "movies" with weak or barely any gameplay though.
I think the argument was that the gameplay is very cinematic, even though 40% of cutscenes seems quite alot. 60% gameplay is stil alot, i finished the game in abit more then 13hrs.
I take umbrage with these quotes from that article. I can't think how the gameplay is dumbed down compared to any other similar cover shooters, in fact there's more gameplay than most with the mobility they introduced with the swing mechanic.
Yes it's a cinematic game, there's no doubt about that and yes most Sony first party are targeting single player cinematic experiences it's because it's what they good at and a differentiator from the competition but the narrative that the gameplay is poor in there games is just wrong from my experience.
Yes if you don't like cutscenes and downtime I understand how you wouldn't enjoy the games, I remember I had a friend when I was a young who used to skip all the dialogue in Baldur's Gate and that use to totally confound me
To each is own though it's the downplaying of the gameplay that irritates me.
Opinions have no worth if they don't contain proposals of improvement, IMO, hehe
What would you suggest to 'fix' games like UC or GoW?
I read a lot of comments of people that do not like this or that game. It's easy to figure out what they do not like, but they never say what they want instead. This makes it hard to listen to their complaints.
And personally i'm struggling about the question: Can games tell a story at all, without breaking the illusion too much? Likely it's about the proper compromise. But if we reduce storytelling, we also reduce everything that defines AAA. How to escape this dead end?
Opinions have no worth if they don't contain proposals of improvement, IMO, hehe
What would you suggest to 'fix' games like UC or GoW?
I read a lot of comments of people that do not like this or that game. It's easy to figure out what they do not like, but they never say what they want instead. This makes it hard to listen to their complaints.
And personally i'm struggling about the question: Can games tell a story at all, without breaking the illusion too much? Likely it's about the proper compromise. But if we reduce storytelling, we also reduce everything that defines AAA. How to escape this dead end?
To me, games are about choices and consequences on the micro and macro level. A micro choice might be when to jump, when to shoot, how to move. A macro choice would be something like making a choice that changes the direction of the story, or a subset of the story. On-rails experiences are more suited to mediums like television and movies. LA Noire is pretty interesting because it straddles the line fairly nicely. The interactivity of the conversational scenes forces you to make decisions based on your ability to read the emotions and motives of the person you're speaking with. So even though you don't get to decide the overall narrative, you have real input in how the individual interactions unfold. They could have had more ambitious branching or outcomes based on those choices, but it's an interesting way to tell a more structured narrative like a movie in the medium of a game.
Cinematic games are here to stay; and I can't see a scenario where we'd go back in time to earlier days. The topic around cinematic gameplay for instance; vs the old days is probably not that important because gameplay mirrors the environment and technical difficulties we have.
Back in the day; it was all and only about gameplay because arcades existed; games were hard in difficulty to suck your coins.
A lot of games made a lot of sense in that respect; the number of lives; point system; leaderboards etc. It was a function of the times, not to mention the infancy of game design.
Today's games and their inclusion of cinema is quite similar in that regard. Playing a game, alone, possibly in a home theatre setup, mostly 1-2 hours available to play with; real time to get involved with the plot, the story, the characters. And unless things change in the marketplace, I see this trend continuing.
There's nothing wrong with it, and anyone could enjoy a game like that; a good story goes a long way. Is gameplay the same? I would say it's very different; cinematic curation largely makes for gameplay that is achievable.
You'll never get the Diago Evo moment for instance. As someone who used to play too much SC2 there's this crtiical point where you and your opponent are both down to a sliver of health, but the battle continues for a flurry of 10-15 seconds longer with parries and dodging, players getting into the zone, we called that the Soul Gasm. Because it's that insane euphoric rush you get when it's down to the buzzer.
Playing EvE Online is mainly boring until something crazy happens; and suddenly you were apart of something bigger than you. World of Warcraft classic was sort of similar in that fashion too as was Ultima Online.
There is more than enough room for all types of games; as we grow in player count. How we market; or move specific games to the forefront to reach people looking for different experiences is probably worth a discussion; and likely a indirect form of envy from individuals being bombarded by titles they aren't interested in; or perhaps the titles they are interested in are no longer being made; see Flight Simulators or RTS titles.
Anyway, I do keep value that it's unfair to criticize a game for something it is not. In this respect, attacking cinematic games for being cinematic seems inappropriate. But that doesn't mean some things couldn't be changed for the better.
Back in the day; it was all and only about gameplay because arcades existed; games were hard in difficulty to suck your coins.
A lot of games made a lot of sense in that respect; the number of lives; point system; leaderboards etc. It was a function of the times, not to mention the infancy of game design.
Today's games and their inclusion of cinema is quite similar in that regard. Playing a game, alone, possibly in a home theatre setup, mostly 1-2 hours available to play with; real time to get involved with the plot, the story, the characters. And unless things change in the marketplace, I see this trend continuing.
There's nothing wrong with it, and anyone could enjoy a game like that; a good story goes a long way. Is gameplay the same? I would say it's very different; cinematic curation largely makes for gameplay that is achievable.
You'll never get the Diago Evo moment for instance. As someone who used to play too much SC2 there's this crtiical point where you and your opponent are both down to a sliver of health, but the battle continues for a flurry of 10-15 seconds longer with parries and dodging, players getting into the zone, we called that the Soul Gasm. Because it's that insane euphoric rush you get when it's down to the buzzer.
Playing EvE Online is mainly boring until something crazy happens; and suddenly you were apart of something bigger than you. World of Warcraft classic was sort of similar in that fashion too as was Ultima Online.
There is more than enough room for all types of games; as we grow in player count. How we market; or move specific games to the forefront to reach people looking for different experiences is probably worth a discussion; and likely a indirect form of envy from individuals being bombarded by titles they aren't interested in; or perhaps the titles they are interested in are no longer being made; see Flight Simulators or RTS titles.
Anyway, I do keep value that it's unfair to criticize a game for something it is not. In this respect, attacking cinematic games for being cinematic seems inappropriate. But that doesn't mean some things couldn't be changed for the better.
Yea we needed the technology to enable it for sure. And the technology (in the future) will only enable more of it i'm sure.
Technology will also open up new gameplay genres; ie the recent addition of battle royale.
I agree, but video games can be experiences as well as games. A 'game' without choices may still be very entertaining to some. In fact, there are plenty of games where you have no choice and the challenge is purely in perfecting the execution, such as Dance Dance Revolution or Beat Sabre.
So, um, no, actually I disagree.
I agree, but video games can be experiences as well as games. A 'game' without choices may still be very entertaining to some. In fact, there are plenty of games where you have no choice and the challenge is purely in perfecting the execution, such as Dance Dance Revolution or Beat Sabre.
So, um, no, actually I disagree.
Yah, you're right. A strict timing game like DDR is not really a game of choice.
I still have not understood what cinematic means in your book and why it is a problem. You can have cinematic elements during gameplay. The battles of Shadow of Colossus felt cinematic and that barely relies on cut scenes and dialogues.
The action in Zone of the Enders felt cinematic capturing perfectly the style of Anime and and they were 100% gameplay, no button prompts no invasive cut scenes. Smart camera work, animation rhythmic gameplay gave the impression of choreographed action scenes. Omega boost was also similar.
Resident Evil 1 and 2 were some of the best experiences in their time with an amazing George Romero atmosphere due to their music, environments and claustrophobic gameplay. So was Silent Hill 1, 2 and 3.
The current games simply advanced those technologies. They didn't take anything away (except of course Tomb Raider for me)
Does he dislike establishing shots in movies, too?
After thinking a lot about it, i changed my mind from what you say here and draw the line differently.
If we say hand drawn animation (Disney) and movies (captured real life) is both cinema, then we have cinemetic games right from the start. Becasue animated sprites are no different than the former, and captured cutscenes are no different than the latter. Also we had story driven games very early, like text adventures.
So there is nothing new that's happening here. All that has changed is because nowadays there is more attention about games in general. This means more money, more mainstream (so more people that feel left behind if they disagree with that mainstream).
I think it is. What makes games different from movies and books is its dynamics, and animation / story is static. So what's wrong here is that we have not found a way to make those things dynamic, from a technical point of view.
But ofc. what matters much more currently is asking: What can we do for the people that do not want cinematic experience in their favourite genre?
To me it seems, observing reactions from people that i know, and also reading comments:
What people really miss is something like a single player ego shooter without cutscenes, obviously scripted events all the time, and game giving a helping hand so the player follows the exact linear cinematic experience the 'director' intended.
You surely all know th eimage with a complex FPS level on the left from 10years ago, and a totally linear level + cutscenes on the right representing the modern FPS.
It is clear to me there is a huge market, made from people hungry for this, but they never get it.
And that's likely the topic we should discuss here. How could such a game be made today without feeling oldschool? What prevents it from happening?
There is something that separates interactive stories from games, otherwise the old "Choose your own adventure" novels would be games. At some point there's a blurry line that distinguishes a game from other forms of interactivity. It's obvious that "video games" have blurred that line even more. I prefer my games to feel like they have meaningful input, as in what I tell the game to do matters. The less I feel like my input matters, the less interested I am, where I'd rather spend my time watching a movie or a tv show, if I'm looking for visual entertainment. I suppose that's where my "illusion of gameplay" comes from. How much does my input really matter. There are a lot of games that have extraneous input that leads to animation, but has no real stakes behind it in terms of winning/losing, passing/failing, gaining points etc. In the end I guess it becomes a semantic argument, and sometimes I don't have time for those. Is it a game, is it a different form of interactive media? What really matters is if people enjoy spending time with it. I'm a little uncomfortable trend towards less time spent on meaningful gameplay with stakes attached.
Nothing really. People probably shouldn't be using the word 'cinematic' as a qualifier because it's non-defined. Like 'casual' game. Game design with story needs to consider how to integrate the story exposition with the gameplay. This can be interleaved through cutscenes or subtly told through player observation of the environmental clues or through NPC dialogue, etc.
Those saying they don't like cinematic should really instead talk about what features they don't like. I don't like random QTEs without choice or failure, but that doesn't mean I'm against epic stories and quality cutscenes. The umbrella term serves no useful purpose in this discussion.